Madras High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for directing the Medical Counselling Committee of Directorate General of Health Services and JIPMER to pass appropriate orders cancelling the admission of the student (respondent no. 5) to 1st year MBBS Course in JIPMER Puducherry Campus for the academic year 2022-23 and to allot admission to the petitioner to the same course for the academic year 2022-23, C.V. Karthikeyan, J. held that the student had obtained a seat in JIPMER, Puducherry surreptitiously and based on a false declaration. However, it did not cancel the seat of the said student but directed the respondents to take necessary action.
In the case at hand, the petitioner is a student of JIPMER at Karaikal Campus and belongs to other backward class community, but he had applied only under Puducherry General Category He was the first candidate to be allotted a seat in JIPMER Puducherry Internal Karaikal Campus by virtue of his merit. However, 12 candidates, who had secured lower marks in NEET 2022 had secured admission under OBC category through Puducherry Internal Quota in JIPMER Puducherry Campus. He stated that if the OBC – NCL certificate which was issued later to him, had been issued earlier, he would have been automatically allotted admission through Puducherry Internal Quota in JIPMER Puducherry Campus.
It was submitted that respondent no.5 was a native of Puducherry and a resident of Mahe but had studied at Kerala and had also applied in Kerala for admission. In an undertaking submitted by him and his parents, it was stated that he had not opted and claimed benefit of residence for admission in Medical in any other State other than Puducherry.
The Court said that the student had applied for medical seat both in Puducherry and in Kerala and he should not have done that. If he had been selected for medical seat in Kerala though he also had applied in Puducherry then this would have denied a seat to a student from Kerala, who had applied only for that particular seat. As, he had been granted a seat in Puducherry, he had directly affected a prospective candidate from pursuing his MBBS dream in Puducherry.
Thus, the Court held that the student had obtained a seat in JIPMER, Puducherry surreptitiously and based on a false declaration. Further, said that the respondents as a whole will have to take a decision as the student had obtained the seat in a fraudulent manner and based on false declaration. As the authorities (respondents) have offered him a seat, now they will have to take an appropriate decision. It is not for the Court to advise a public servant regarding their duty. They will have to abide by their rules. A student, a native of Puducherry had been denied medical education only owing to the careless attitude of the respondents.
The Court did not cancel the seat of the said student but directed the respondents to take necessary action based on the declaration that he had obtained a seat through a false declaration. Further, it said that whether the petitioner should be allotted or transferred from JIPMER, Kerala to Puducherry is again a decision to be taken only by the authorities.
[Saminathan v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 1309, decided on 22-02-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate M. Ravi;
For Respondent: Central Government Standing Counsel Bala Manimaran, Government Advocate Ramaswamy Meyyappan, Senior Counsel T.P. Manoharan.
Judgment by: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan
